I said "their children", I dont really like that phrase, because it implys they OWN them, and that kind of sounds like slavery.
2007-12-04
13:27:06
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Or at least, should we respect parents training of 'their' children?
2007-12-04
13:28:37 ·
update #1
I think hatred and intolerance can be easily determined using empathy.
2007-12-04
13:33:49 ·
update #2
I pointed out the use of "their" because alot of parents (including my own) do feel that they own their kids.
2007-12-04
13:41:35 ·
update #3
Do you have a right to define what constitutes "hatred and intolerance" if not, who does? The state?
That's a very scary road you're heading down, my friend...
2007-12-04 13:30:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Parents have the sole right to teach 'their' children any set of morals and values they deem 'fit' for instilling into those children's mindsets. If such a set of morals is perceived by the rest of society as hate and intolerance, so be it.
Now, let's turn the tables for a moment. I'd imagine that quite a significant portion of the religious population, devout as well as mainstream, would find atheist and nonreligous parents teaching their children secular values as "instilling hatred and intolerance" towards the faith-based community, no matter how bizarre that would sound to a more reasonable person.
Basically, it is all subjective. However, once the child comes of age and sees the light in a different perspective seperate from their parents' desires, then it would be left for the parents to decide how to reconcile their own narrow-minded values with their child's desire to define his or her own morality. This is where the real conflict lies.
2007-12-04 22:08:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm tired of these questions implying that 180 million American parents do not have the right to raise their offspring because of their religious beliefs. It's an intrinsically fascistic attitude and it utterly disgusts me. In this country we believe in religious freedom. We don't feel that to bring our children up in our own faith if we have one constitutes brainwashing. There is nothing in catholic teachings that instilled "hatred and intolerance" in me; in fact although I am no longer a theist,my religious education did me no harm. Anyway,to be positive,why don't atheists state what they want and state it clearly? You want huge federal child-rearing facilities where children are raised collectively by a bureaucracy and indoctrinated with hard-core atheism? I believe in non- theist spirituality,and I will raise my children as I see fit. I don't care for this Nazi tinge to atheism at all. A lot of you people sound like characters out of George Orwell.
2007-12-04 21:42:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Maya 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yep. I suspect most of the people who consider this child abuse would also be horrified at the thought that the law could interfere in someone's reproductive rights, and I'm not talking about preventing abortion here--I'm talking about sterilizing people who are unfit to raise children. You can't prevent someone from having children just because you think they're going to raise the kind of people that you don't like.
In any case, what hate I was exposed to was in a public school, and came from kids whose parents didn't instill anything at all.
2007-12-04 21:40:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by BAMAMBA 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Freedom of speech, yes. Sad as it sounds it is their right. If the child is fortunate he will be surrounded by examples of individuals and situations from which he will conclude that his parents' attitudes are wrong. His interactions with the right people can help him overcome this.
There was a book out about 5-6 years ago by Judith Martin. I didn't read it but I read about it in Newsweek. It was a controversial hypothesis that peers have more influence on a child's development than the parents. This can be true if the parents minimally interact with their children, who are little sponges that will get their information from the first source(s) they can get it from. In the case of the bigoted parents we can only hope this becomes the case.
2007-12-04 21:38:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
To me they wouldn't be classified as a parent.
I was brought up if my Parents Fed, clothed, kept a roof over my head,and paid my bills .They owned me (as a figure of speech) I could live my own life when I did it all on my own.
I guess that is why we have so many problems in the world. No RESPECT for PARENTS anymore.
My parent never installed hatred,and always installed tolerance, as you can tell.
BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR KIDS!
2007-12-04 21:33:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by cocoamoe 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
It sure doesn't seem right, does it? But the fact is that aside from abuse, which this may very well be, parents can raise *their* children any way they like.
2007-12-04 21:31:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Rebekah 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yep. That's the great thing about being parents. We can brainwash the little suckers to the best of our abilities.
SAVE ME Jeebus! -Homer Simpson
2007-12-04 21:30:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
If I said, "our parents", does that imply "ownership" or slavery, also?
How far can you take this idea?
GOD bless
2007-12-04 21:39:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Exodus 20:1-17 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why would they instill that in their children?
They don't have a right to harm their kids.
I would classify that as emotional and mental abuse..if thats just me.
2007-12-04 21:30:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by * 6
·
2⤊
2⤋